Wednesday, March 7, 2012

A video is making its way around the interwebs this morning from some guy claiming he figured out a way to beat our body scanners (imaging technology).

I watched the video and it is a crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures.

For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail, however TSA conducts extensive testing of all screening technologies in the laboratory and at airports prior to rolling them out to the entire field. Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallicweapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.

With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all.

However, our nation's aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports. It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that completely addresses privacy concerns. Also, keep in mind that is optional. Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down.

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in ourOff Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog postarchives orsearch our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by usingTalk to TSA.

Beautiful, so instead of posting anything to refute the video and/or support it. You give us the old soft shoe and call it good. Sorry, not good enough, if someone has figured out how to bypass the screening. Then this is a cause for concern.

So just to be clear, are you suggesting that the video is faked, and Jonathan Corbett didn't make it through the scanners with the metal object he shows in the video?

You write, "I watched the video and it is a crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures."

You go on to say that the scanners have found guns, nonmetallic objects, etc., but don't address whether you think the "crude attempt" actually circumvented TSA screening procedures, which seems to be the central question raised about the scanners by the video, and would seem to be the main reason you would want to respond to Corbett--to tell him (and the public) that the method he says he used wouldn't work.

It may have been a crude attempt, but it looks successful at evading detection at airports with both types of scanners. It really makes me question the amount of money spent on the scanners when metal detectors and x-ray machines do a better job at detecting threats. On the weekly roundups of prohibited items, the body scanners seem to catch very few of the items.

How many millions of dollars have been spent on these new scanners? It seems like way too much if somebody can smuggle something by putting it in a pocket on his side.

At one time weren't box cutters a crude attempt? Wasn't PETN in underwear a crude attempt?

This blogger had an apparent successful attempt.

One thing we all learned from 9/11, is that attacks on aviation and transportation don't have to be terribly sophisticated. Yes Bob, they can be "crude."

I'm disappointed in this agency's handling of this successful attempt to test the security of our nation's airports. I think the traveling public would appreciate it more if you admit the obvious faults, and not try to distract from the fact that this individual, or any others with harmful intentions, could have pulled off the next attack,

Im so glad there is "video proof" of this object never leaving his pocket. Ill honestly belive it when I see the whole attempt on video, not some broken, editted version that doesn't show him going through the body scanner. This just goes to show how easily the populus can be suaded be a video, which can easily be editted.

"A video is making its way around the interwebs this morning from some guy claiming he figured out a way to beat our body scanners (imaging technology)."

Yep, just "some guy." He certainly doesn't have a name, and if he does he's not worthy of being referred to by it-- he's just "some guy."

"I watched the video and it is a crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures."

And the 9/11 attacks were a "crude attempt" to bring down several planes, in which they succeeded.

" It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM."

Yes, I suppose "metallic and non-metallic items" include "things that go BOOM." Of course, the category includes, umm, well-- EVERY SINGLE OBJECT IN EXISTENCE. Not to mention the fact that you have apparently never actually detected something that goes "BOOM."

"With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device."

He also managed to evade your sophisticated human lie detectors (i.e. BDOs). And I've never seen a canine at a checkpoint.

"However, our nation's aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports."

I love how this claim doesn't actually require any substantiation. It's true because you-- "some guy"-- say it is.

Pathetic response from a pathetic employee of a pathetic agency.

[A screenshot of this post, which does not violate any of your guidelines, has been captured.]

Wow, that is terrible. Not the video I mean. Your response. You call his attempt at circumvention crude, but do nothing to refute it. So what you're saying is your million dollar machines can be circumvented via crude measures? Good to know! Way to keep that competence level up.

"you know… things that go BOOM."

Really? REALLY?! My 5 year old cousin could've written a more mature strawman arguement

The Backscatter Whole Body Strip Search Machines have never been tested for safety even though TSA has claimed such. Mr. Pistole testified before Congress that he would have such testing done then decided his promise to Congress wasn't worth upholding. I could list many less than truthful statements made by the TSA on this very blog but no reason to cover old ground. Mr. Corbett has clearly demonstrated that contraband can be carried through the extremely expensive TSA Strip Search Machines and this indicates testing that was just as ineffective as what TSA did with the Explosive Trace Portals, those other extremely expensive devices that TSA just tossed into the garbage at great expense to the public.

The TSA is constantly proven to be a complete waste of money. Please stop hating America so much, and find a job doing something that actually has a positive impact. It really disturbs me that my money is being used to fund an organization that hates me, and hates the country I love.

The TSA Blog Team posted a crude article that allegedly tried to refute Jonathan Corbett's claim that it is easy to beat the expensive TSA body scanners that bombard us with radiation. However, the TSA Blog Team's failure to address Corbett's claim directly indicates his claim is true. This waste of taxpayer money rivals the Solyndra scandal.

When I saw the viral video, I actually felt skeptical of it. I imagined the scanners could easily defeat the technique shown in the video.

I came to the TSA blog to see the official word, and this blog post made me MORE worried! This post had a highly unprofessional tone, using worm words to be dismissive of the claims of the video. It was a classic exercise in a non-answer, which is precisely the opposite of what an outreach blog should be doing.

I seriously would've been happier with a simple, "We cannot discuss the details of our detection capabilities, but we've taken steps to ensure that scenario described is not a vulnerability."

Instead, this blog post leaves me with the feeling that the vulnerability is real, and that the TSA does not necessarily have any plans or know how to address it.

Please consider providing a more direct, concise, and professional answer. Thank you.

Excuse me Bob? Is there anything more crude than box cutters? and those "invisible-people-that-TSA-can't-mention-for-fear-of-CAIR-suing-us" travelers on Sept 11 used them. Crude, but effective.

Now, where in all Heavens is the TSA reaction to the Breast Pump issue in HI? Why are you ignoring that? Maybe because TSA really messed than one up? Why worry, Bob? TSA makes no mistakes, right? TSA agents just need some re-training and that fixes whatever civil liberties violation they do, right?

What video? Mind linking it? No wait don't. I think I've seen it. There's also one of Adam Savage getting through with 2, 6 inch foam cutting razors in a very similar way that Corbett got through with his little case. But I'm sure that was just a fluke. Right?

You don't actually address the issue at hand. The man says he can make it through, you just gave us some bs on how good your stuff is. All your doing is calling the man a liar with some pretty wording and defending your outrageously stupid decision to get these invasive scanners.Do you happen to be a former politician? Because you are really good at spinning.

@Anonymous March 7, 2012 4:20 PM, why do you doubt the video is real? The problem was exposed in the scientific literature 15 months ago:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g6620thk08679160/fulltext.pdf

Fundamentally, the problem is that the scanner can only tell whether there is a reflection or not. If nothing comes back it can't tell if that's because there was no target and it just went on past (as would happen when the beam went beside the subject) or whether the beam was absorbed (as when it hit a piece of metal.)

I don't agree with your assessment of Corbett's video, but several of my fellow citizens have done a fine job of commenting on that. Here's where I'd like to offer you feedback: you are an online spokesperson for a government agency. Please write like one.

Your use of terms like "interwebs", "BOOM", and your failure to address Mr. Corbett by name does not give you common ground with your internet audience. We are adults (adolescents and teens are -- no offense -- probably not going to read your article). Please talk to us like adults. Using juvenile speech while representing an agency of our Great Nation just makes you look dumb and taints your organization's already tainted name.

Do better next time. Read your Presidents. Read Churchill. These were (and are) men who spoke valiantly and courageously during perilous times. It was their voice that carried our nation and other great nations through dark hours. Stop thinking your "blog" grants you the right to talk like a tween or hipster. Please. The World is watching.

It doesn't help the TSA's message or image or generate much needed positive feelings towards the TSA when you write such a harshly worded post.

I read this blog to try and find some logic into the wasteful government spending that is the TSA and I have yet to find it. A post like this only hurts your already thin credibility.

Please, issue a retraction and just say that the TSA is looking into it. The world is full of smart people and perhaps this person found a loophole. What's the worst that could happen by posting an apology for your tone and demeaning attitude? A little good will thrown your way perhaps?

I do social for a living and from one professional to another, you all need some PR training and help.

Bob - crude or not how does any of the "layers" of security help against:* flaws in the scanners* badly trained "agents"* no security on airport personel* availability of "sharps" beyond screening (eg knives at food establishments* improvised weapons - eg a broken biro or glass from a bathroom mirror* multiple bad actors carrying components... all inert and under 3 fl oz until combined

This post, and others like it in no way provides justification for the expense of the current security theater practiced in the US. When will we see some real, non-reactive, non-political action?

What a truly pathetic response. Using words like "crude" and "allegedly" do nothing to change the truth - this system is a pointless and dangerous waste of time and money. The metal detectors worked, and they were not invasive. The body scanners are far less effective, and far more invasive.

This is embarrassing. It is all very well to joke around and write in a "young" voice when your subject matter is apple pie, motherhood and America.

As a public servant writing in a PR crisis control context, it is ludicrous to adopt a tone that is not humble and somber.

I try whenever I can in my personal life to speak up for the US government against the maelstrom of voices weeping and wailing about taxes. I recognize that a lot of good is done with public money and that the vast majority of men and women in the public sector take their responsibility with a sense of dignity. Posts like this one make that job more difficult.

This is completely in keeping with the TSA's usual success rate of about 30% in catching bombs, guns, etc. The problem is that Mr. Corbett didn't try it enough times to be fair to the TSA. He only went through twice, so he only had a 60% probability of being detected. To be fair, he should have done it at least five times so that the TSA would have better odds of catching him.

Why do you people hate the TSA so? They are only trying to keep us safe. Please only grade them on their performance in catching fake hand grenades and bottles of water, not actual threats.

Please remember why Jonathan cares about this. It's because while these scanners are known to have risks we don't know how high those risks go.

Not only is their safety level unknown but the stated risk from them (standing in the sun has a risk, we can be certain these scanners have a risk) is about the same as the risk of being caught in a terrorist attack.

Pretty unlikely to be caught in a terrorist attack right? Also pretty unlikely to contract cancer from a machine but it turns out that the two risks are about equivalent and since the long term risks of the scanners are unknown, putting our children and our families through them is not what we'd like to do.

So Bob, while we appreciate your work and stopping "things that go boom" you're making some other things (our DNA) go fizz in the process.

In fact since the stated risk fromt the scanners is the same as the likelihood of getting caught in a terrorist attack you are in fact doing the terrorists job for them.

For the sake of your children be glad that Jonathan made this video. He's saving lives too

I have safetly completed many international flights without any security incidents. My secret is that I carry my Lucky Rock.

I won't be travelling for a while, so if the TSA would like to lease my Lucky Rock please let me know. The price tag may seem high, $100,000 a month, but remember that 100% of the flights I've flown on have not been attacked.

What does 20 layers of security mean, when the guy has SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED A METAL OBJECT through all of them.

Your post is a typical non-answer answer, like when a hacked corporation says in a press release "we take computer security very seriously", when obviously they don't. It's pathetic. It's not good public relations.

You guys can't do what you are supposed to do at all, all you are doing is a public eyewash and getting rich at the expense of our civil liberties and tax dollars. You deserved to be disbanded and die a slow, painful death (the organization, not its boneheaded slaves).

"Three days ago, engineer and blogger Jonathan Corbett posted a video on YouTube detailing how he was able to get a small metal case past the Transportation and Security Administration’s (TSA) controversial nude body scanners, not once, but twice.

Since then, the TSA has responded to the video with a blog post of its own, with a stunning display of arrogance and failing to address the issues at hand."

Whoever wrote this blog sounds like officer Bar Brady, "alright people... Move along...... Nothing to see in that alleged video... Our machines work." And the whole time, right behind him, there is a horde of taliban with guns, ammo, and peices of tanks running through the scanner.

He just made the entire tsa sound ridiculous, what moron approved this person, or this blog post from within tsa? Is there not a supervisor? Or are they a jr high drop out too?

come on tsa, it's no wonder you get picked on constantly. You paint such giant targets on your back. Get your crap together, and post an ed-you-ma-cated re-butt-le

A blog post is making its way around the interwebs from some guy playing down security concerns regarding the company he works for.

I read the post and it is a crude attempt to mock the blogger who apparently found a way of tricking the TSA screening procedures.

For obvious PR reasons the employee can't discuss the subject in detail, but he choses to reassure concerned passengers by completely ignoring the accusations and subtly claiming they'd still detect "things that go BOOM".

With all that said, the way a TSA blogger handles criticism is just one factor of how well protected the public feels (innovation, employee behaviour, security technology etc.). It certainly doesn't say "Shut the hell up, we're here for the funding."

bob, this kind of disparaging commentary about the engineer in questions so challenges your credibility that even someone like myself who has often given TSA the benefit of the doubt now must view you with suspicion. you are no longer believable bob...you are, in fact, exposing yourself as a mouthpiece for lies...why do this? if this man is "lying" prove it, charge him, publicly disgrace him. Your attacks and contempt for him have done more harm to the TSA than he ever could. Shame, Bob.sooner or later the truth about these machines and your prevarications will be outed and you will be the one remembered as the great TSA liar.

The only thing done right on this blog post is leaving the comments unmoderated. The ridiculous response is shocking to the point of being frightening, and is pretty much a long winded version of a five year old saying "nu-UHHH" to the evidence in hand. Retract this blog post, write an intelligent and mature response to the video and realize that dismissing something doesn't illegitimize it - you have to disprove it. In that vein, I would love to see the video of him going through the checkpoint. If he failed (as you implied) then it's as simple as releasing the video for you to disprove him :)

Bob, a passenger can be arrested at the checkpoint for joking about bombs, yet you think it's funny to use a phrase such as "things that go BOOM">

Your agency has lost all the respect of many Americans, and it's high time to cut back funding for the TSA. Cut number one should be your job and this blog, because it's clear you have no desire to address real concerns.

Again, how you can fall asleep at night knowing you hold the job you do is beyond me.

And even if you decide to not post this, hopefully your conscience will have started to stir after all these posts.

Your employer is vile, plain and simple, starting with Secretary Napolitano and Administrator Pistole and the whole lot of them.

I traveled through two airports this week that had the old "backscatter" machines that have NO privacy filters. To make matters worse, the TSA employees staffing the radiation emitting devices were unprofessional and rude, as is usual.

Gomar said..."I'm disappointed in this agency's handling of this successful attempt to test the security of our nation's airports. I think the traveling public would appreciate it more if you admit the obvious faults, and not try to distract from the fact that this individual, or any others with harmful intentions, could have pulled off the next attack,"

They will *never* admit that there are faults because there isn't any way to fix them. They are pretending to do a job that is simply impossible.

Admitting to the faults would amount to admitting that they are useless. No bureaucracy is going to kill itself like that.

You go on to say that the scanners have found guns, nonmetallic objects, etc., but don't address whether you think the "crude attempt" actually circumvented TSA screening procedures, which seems to be the central question raised about the scanners by the video, and would seem to be the main reason you would want to respond to Corbett--to tell him (and the public) that the method he says he used wouldn't work.

If this "some guy" had packed that metal case full of C4, he would no longer be just some guy, he'd be a martyr. Keep up the great work. You are nothing but a glorified postal service and just as ineffective.

Now they're going to make us do two scans in the naked scanner machines: One facing the wall (like we do now), then turn 90 degrees so they can get a profile shot. I worry about the radiation exposure, but my girlfriend has other concerns with those machines.

I know of some experts in the field of making "things that go boom" who snicker at the TSA and the '20 layers of security'. They state that getting 'things that go boom' past you clowns is ridiculously easy. Thankfully these are good people who would never harm anyone.

As soon as they can tell the difference between fecal matter in the intestine from plastic explosive(C4) in the intestine, I will say they have something of value. However, since there is no way to tell what the "blob" is in the intestine, it is a useless tool and a direct infringement on the Fourth Amendment.

Get a bomb sniffing dog and a smart retired cop and they will do far more to block attempts than a stupid machine will, and will be far less intrusive.

Wwwoooowww people really dont like the TSA. You say crude attempt, but he made it through the scanners. Sooo id call that a successfull attempt. Maybe next time TSA, till then keep on groping the elderly and the young and pissing off the public. Thats the way.

Anonymous Anonymous said... Read up a little bit on Corbett. He is suing TSA for a lot of money.

If he were a true patriot, he would have reported his findings to the TSA. But he has an agenda and that wouldn't have helped him._______________

Actually, Corbett claims that he did share the video with TSA, repeatedly, before going public with it. Corbett previewed it to TSA to give TSA an opportunity to plan some corrective response to this glaring security flaw. TSA doesn't intend to address its glaring security flaws, because the TSA doesn't care about our safety. Travelers already knew that TSA was more likely to harm us than to protect us. The real success of Corbett's video is that with the play this is getting in the mainstream media, even Ma and Pa Kettle won't be able to stomach spending billions of dollars on the TSA's make-believe.

Our country isn't one bit safer due to the TSA. In fact, the TSA are actively making our country *less* safe by creating a false sense of security and misleading people about the nature of security and the threats we face.

And even *if* the TSA were responsible for some marginal increase in safety, that would not be a worthwhile tradeoff for the sacrifices we're asked to make vis-a-vis our inate civil liberties.

Bottom line: The TSA should be completely disbanded, and security should become the responsibility of: A. the airlines, B. the airports, C. the passengers.

Please, read Bruce Schneier's blog sometime, he explains how useless the TSA is in great detail.

This is precisely why I refuse to fly. Not only do you have to surrender several rights guaranteed by the constitution, you are given the choice of radiation exposure or an invasive pat-down. And on top of all that, after a gap in your flawed system is exposed, you shrug it off. The way that you try to discredit the man who exposed this, without really speaking to vulnerability itself, is laughable at best.

The TSA should explain how their technology can detect such things as ceramics, such as ceramic knives or items ingested or "stored" in body cavaties. I would be interested to hear this explanation of milimeter wave technology's capabilities.

I'm aorry, isn't the point of the TSA to detect things which could be a security threat to passengers on an airplane? What does it matter if a person has a bag of drugs on them? Are they going to force it down a pilot's throat? Last time I checked TSA is neither a police force nor US Customs.

And oh, say, what's the protocol if and when someone actually does have explosives under their clothes? Because last time I checked TSA agents don't have police powers of arrest or even guns. So the person is kindly asked to step aside until the police can arrive? What stops this person from blowing themselves up then and there, killing or injuring the hundreds who can be queued up in the line for security checks during busy travel seasons?

What a totally unprofessional response from what is supposed to be a person representing the federal government! TSA's blog moderation rules prohibit personal attacks, but TSA's blogger CAN engage in personal attacks?! You know, the Red Book (Federal Appropriations Law) specifically prohibits the use of appropriated funds for propaganda, which this blog clearly is.

Poor Bob...you really have been indoctrinated and believe what you are saying, don't you? I really feel sorry for you. You have convinced yourself it is perfectly acceptable to molest innocent people and call it "security". And then when someone proves the TSA's nudie scanners don't work you are not able to see the truth.

As a person who has to opt out of these scanners for medical reasons, I really do not like these machines. They have caused me to endure patdowns that are more suited to prison than air travel.

It is infuriating to see these scanners defeated so easily. These machines cost a lot of money and are no more, and likely less effective than the metal detectors that have been used for years.

When I go through my invasive patdown for opting-out, I always get swabbed for explosive residue. If that is combined with metal detectors and x-ray machine, that seems like a much better and less intrusive security method than the scanners.

With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all. So the strip searching of little leaguers and the digging through the colostomy bags of termminally ill grandmas will continue in the TSA's never-ending mission to keep America's airways safe from Americans.

Yeah, because terrorists never use "crude" attempts to achieve their means. I mean that's NEVER happened, right? As far as I'm concerned, shoes and underpants worn by "some guy" are the cutting-edge of sophistication when it comes to targeted threats.

The TSA and DHS are two of the biggest embarrassments in American history. It would be funny if it weren't our liberties and tax dollars being pissed away. Those charged with ensuring our security can't perceive the merit of a threat exposed, for example, by "some guy" walking through security with a concealed metal container, versus my ability to carry a bottle of water with me on when I fly to California.

By the TSA's measure, the cost of my "freedom" is submission of my dignity and personal freedoms, not to mention billions of dollars.

A "true patriot" would do exactly like Corbett and make his findings available to the people who elect the government that has the power to put an end to the Theatrical Security Association.Self-preservation is unfortunately the TSA's primary objective at this stage, as evidenced by the defensive tone of this blog post.

Displaying a generic image to a screener doesn't "completely" satisfy any privacy concerns. The machine still has the raw image on disk and those images have been "accidentally" stored and leaked from screening machines before.

It's still an electronic strip search.

It's also not your job to search for anything other than banned items. If the machine successfully detects something that's not a threat, that's a failure, even if the item is illegal for other reasons.

So what? It's not like you can use weed to kill people. The video shows him bringing an empty metallic case through the scanner which could have easily contained razor blades or worse. I sneak weed through the airport all the time! Haha

TSA - please don't take the public's frustration with this the wrong way. the american public doesn't want you to learn from this and INCREASE your efforts at harrassing millions of innocent travelers in a misguided and misrepresented attempt at providing "safety"...they want you to go away and leave airport security to the private sector once again. We don't want government agents fondling our children and grandmothers for no probable cause by a group that has never stopped an attack. we want our rights respected...you know like in the CONSTITUTION. BOOM!

Bob,It's comical to me how every single one of your posts is so carefully worded to avoid actually refuting anything while downplaying it through childish mocking. I think it would benefit TSA to understand that this behavior does nothing to increase the public's confidence in TSA, but instead reinforces questions about TSA's ability to react to criticism in any remotely constructive way.

Prior to 9/11, the company that I work for managed the security checkpoint at a major airport using only metal detectors. We logged all firearms we confiscated and averaged 20 a month for the three years prior to 9/11. Starting in October of 2011, the TSA has averaged less than 20 per year (nationwide?) I doubt people have stopped forgetting about the weapons in their bags. Seems to me that the TSA is doing as worse job with more monet and staff.

Haha, so there is worthless scanning with free radiation included, or get molested with no added bonus. This reminds me of Atlas Shrugged when the government made an official statement condemning Rearden Metal without stating facts or stating lies just generalities that can't be negated or proven. Silly TSA...

Straight from another one of Bob's posts on the blog home page: "Including checkpoint and checked baggage screening, TSA has 20 layers of security both visible and invisible to the public. Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack."

Please keep in mind that this is “Security Theater”. The government is attempting to create an illusion of security. There is no real security here. It is simply an exercise of the power of the federal government.

First, a note about the tone of this blog entry: this blog is operated by a government agency. As a taxpayer, I expect government employees who make public statements about their work via official outlets to do so in a professional manner.

The tone of this post is utterly unprofessional.

As for the "crude attempt" remark, Adolph Galland summed it up best: "The primitive can also be a weapon."

Most importantly, this "crude attempt" apparently worked.

If your agency cannot reliably defeat "crude attempts," it will reliably fail against sophisticated threats, no matter how many crotches your agents group or nude images you collect.

I'm not surprised that someone came up with an easy way to work around a back-scatter machine. Also, not surprised that the TSA's blog is downplaying it.

That's a big, one billion dollar "Oops". Yeah. How about falling back on some tried and true methods of basic screening and stop treating everyone as a potential terrorist. That includes paraplegic grandmas, yeah, I went there.

Speaking of terrorists... How many has your agency caught? Yeah, you find objects that stupid people seem to leave on their person or in their bags, but those objects will also be found by basic metal detectors and x-ray machines.

There is a very simple solution to this problem. The position that one stands in front of the scanner will allow for items to be hidden because of blind spots on the side of a body, because the view is head on. If the body position is turned slightly so the scanner sees front & side at the same time, the entire body will be covered with NO blind spots, issue solved.... ....but alas, I am sure TSA will never think of that!

Nice attempt at covering up the truth. Your stupid reactive security measures are ineffective, at best. At worst, it's an affront to our liberties. I thought we weren't going to let the terrorists changes the way we live.

Wait a second ... baggies of drugs can explode? The ONLY reason that TSA searches are legal is because explosions on airplanes are worse than explosions on buses or explosions in stadiums or explosions in malls, or explosions at racetracks or explosions at state fairs or explosions on crowded streets or ....

Whoa! Maybe we need the TSA to be searching people for explosives EVERYWHERE there are crowds? We're all at risk, and we're all potential terrorists. I hereby give the TSA permission to search me for explosives whenever I leave my house, whenever I drive my car, whenever I ride my bicycle, whenever I walk anywhere. No, not just permission, I *insist* on being kept safe. Search me all the time, day in, day out, search, search, search!

It's the only way to be safe. Trust your government ... you voted for them after all.

Oh dear. I'm sorry Mr. Anonymous, but you fail. You didn't watch the video, did you? Because if you had, you would have learned that HE DID REPORT HIS FINDINGS TO THE TSA. Any white-hat security researcher is going to report vulnerabilities to the vulnerable organization. Only if they do nothing to correct the vulnerability within a reasonable period of time does the security researcher publish her findings. That is exactly what happened.

And yet... not a single fact in this blog post to refute the facts of the video.

The condascending tone and ridiculoud non answer is insulting to our intelligence. I don't blame the blogger, who knows? Maybe he's just the poor sap who had to put his name to this drivel and didn't have a lot of input on it, but the fact is - the fish starts to stink at the head. The Obama administration has continually and consistenly fostered a culture of arrogance and heavy handedness in the TSA and can be counted upon to poo poo any legitimate concerns shown by TAXPAYERS (hint: we pay your salary dude) and sweep them swiftly and quietly under the rug.

Fact is, these machines WERE touted as the end all be all - at least with respect to the main security checkpoint instpection site. What else could have justified the obscene costs of these things. If they don't have everything you need then when am I paying so many of my hardearned dollars for something that's not completely effective?

So Bob, you say that "for obvious security reasons" you have to keep everything a secret. That's just not true. The best security is open and readily available for scrutiny by a wide community. The fact that you keep your methods and techniques secret proves that they are worthless. The only reason for government secrets (other than short-term tactical info) is to protect the ineptness of the government.

*headdesk* ... when *facepalm* isn't sufficient. Okay, so I understand the value of the TSA's security theater ... up to a point. It's dangerous when people drive instead of flying, because flying is so much safer than driving, even if a few planes drop out of the sky every decade. "Hey, trust us, your airplanes are safe! See? We have these magic boxes which detect bad people!" But beyond a certain point (and we left that point in the rear view mirror years ago) the security theater starts to CAUSE people to drive instead of fly.

The TSA should be shut down immediately. If airlines want to implement any security policies, they are free to do so -- and other airlines are free not to -- and people are free to choose. Remember freedom? That's what the TSA is here to defend.

I guess if were to comment on the same level as the original blog post, I would say this:

Herp derp! You keep catching those epic fails! Terrorist can not has the BOOMS! YAY TSA! Stupid public, why you no love TSA?! They has all the cheezburgers and can stop the BOOMS!

Of course... that's not the point here. Then again, that may be the "majority of America" that keeps the TSA in business through blind stupidity, thus the blog is in the correct language to stay in business!

This goes back to the absurdity that the workers wear badges that say 'Officer' even though the TSA has not been granted that authority. If you have to fake something as stupid as that, how can we trust you on the scanners safety OR effectiveness?

I'm quite confident in TSA's ability to track down mothers with breast pumps and harass the elderly. I've seen little evidence they are capable of stopping anyone who seriously is committed to smuggling weapons or explosives on board a plane. TSA is a nuisance and airport security is a joke riddles with flaws.

I like this line the best: "...one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.". Yeah, because the 9/11 hijackers used "things that go BOOM." to hijack the planes...oh wait they used box cutters, didn't they? Just another of the exponentially many reasons how the TSA is out-of-touch with not only their own reality, but the reality of American history.

Just like everything else the bloated, insatiable government touches it's buracracy can never be streamlined to meet the evolving security needs. Give yourself extra time and get the pat down... I like to think of it as "getting my monies worth". Although I am disgusted that an frequent traveling, law abiding citizen has to do such things. This blog is a joke and its another sad representation of a failed agency.

1. Remind me again how many of those 9/11 terrorists that downed airplanes on US soil used "things that go boom"? None to my knowledge.2. How about you step back off your soapbox, pay attention to what is being shown as a gaping whole in your 20th layer of security, thank the man for his input, and fix it rather than stubbornly digging in to your position.

I find your total lack of introspection that you could possibly be doing something better typical of government programs.

Two things. First, you have to understand the TSA is an inherently reactionary body, expect to see a modification of current procedures to deal specifically with this "threat" while also doing absolutely nothing to address any real security problems.

Secondly, if the airlines are "safer" with the TSA, it's only because flying has become such an onerous prospect that a lot fewer people bother anymore. The odds of the next terrorist attack involving airplanes or airports in any way are relatively small, at this point it's old hat and wouldn't be as effective. We need to work on more effective means of screening and dealing with terrorist threats, but the TSA isn't one of them. If you want to see how this should be done, look to the FBI, who runs a fairly successful anti-terror task force.

If the scanners are "completely safe" why did the TSA union fight for screeners to be given personal dossimeters to be worn on the uniform? Who's paying for these dossimeters that measure radiation from the completely safe scanners? Please explain.

It is one thing to mock someone who tries to circumvent the rules of the TSA, I get that, but it is totally another thing to flat out lie to the people who are reading this. What Mr. Corbett did is not something novel, even as he points out in his video. These security threats via this detection system were known, and while I have no proof I would HOPE they were known at the highest levels of our TSA and government.If not that tells us even more than we need to know about how well TSA has done their job.

The people really are not buying this story anymore than we need to be grabbed, prodded, and examined like race horses before we get in a plane. The people are getting more wise and are beginning to voice their opinions. An agency with no elected representatives in control are making rules that Congress would otherwise be taking up and we are supposed to take this seriously?

Laugh off this man's video if you wish, but if he showed we the people anything he showed us that even the government can be outsmarted every once and a while and if the government can be outsmarted it is time to give up the narrative that the TSA is the only way to keep people safe. We could keep people free AND safe by privatizing the TSA, but since it is filled with government bureaucrats I know that won't go down well with many IN the TSA.

Without question anyone can get material capable for bringing down a large airliner thru TSA. TSA is 50% theater at best. The guy in the video clearly went through with a metallic item in his pocket. The last time I went thru one of those stupid machine they were upset with the paper in my chest pocket and they said nothing to this guy.

This would all be funny if it didn't cost America billions of dollars and trample all over the rights we thought were protected by the Constitution.

The good news is that I know a guy who carries a small knife (about the size of nail clippers) through security every time he flies. So at least one upstanding citizen will be lightly armed if bad guys ever attempt to hijack a plane again. Oh wait, the bad guys already accomplished everything they wanted and more by bankrupting our country. While we were focused on airplanes, the real danger took over congress.

The TSA obviously take your security about as seriously as a rumor of snow in Nigeria. A national Embarrassment. They fave failed numerous internal tests where weapons have successfully been smuggled onboard commercial aircraft. The viral video had an undeniable point. Neither the human eye or the naked scanners can see contrast of a metalic image on a dark backgound. Period. Total FAIL.

Can I just take a minute to talk about how we got to this point?John Pistole has said that the security process needs to be a partnership between the TSA and the traveling public, and for a long time, it was. No shoes- fine. No liquids? That's kind of a pain, but okay. We went along with all the rules, because, hey, safety, right?Then, the AIT machines came along, and the public said, "Whoa, wait a minute." And instead of listening to the public's concerns, and realizing that the TSA was approaching the limit of what the public would accept, Pistole doubled down, and introduced the "Enhanced patdown" for those who refused to be scanned. He is the one that broke the partnership, and now you have this: Instead of just some third-world terrorist trying to figure out how to circumvent TSA technology, you have a whole crowd of "some guys" doing the same thing, and a whole audience of patriotic Americans (myself included) who are loving them for it. If you want to restore the "partnership" with the American people, you need to LISTEN to what we will and will not accept in the name of security.

It would have been far more constructive to actually address the concerns raised in the video. Dismissive and evasive appearances to not increase confidence. We deserve straight answers from the TSA, and sense this is an official TSA blog, I believe the post should have been responsive to the issue: are we safe? Instead there was snark. In a way, we may be worse off than we were on 09/10/2001: we now have a dedicated high cost agency that is acting arrogant, instead of a small embatttled security force being prevented by PC conncerns from doing their job. I would respectfully urge the TSA leadership to treat this seriously and not again indulge in the attitude expressed by this blogger.

The TSA is still looking for that 'big one', that is the TSA actually preventing a true terrorist from boarding an airliner with the capacity to inflict harm to the plane and/or its occupants. Mranwhile the flying public will continue being harrassed by ersatz uniformed policemen.

WOW, should be a politician to say so much but not say anything. Its written in away that actually gives validation to the video which to me was suspect until I read this. "by the way, we have 19 other methods" is not really a good company line.